Granny Danger Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Neil Findlay has came out and said Scottish Labour should be independent of the branch office He also said an independent Scottish Labour Party would be anti-Trident. I'd be very wary of a group of people who could do a 180 degree turn on an issue of this importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 He also said an independent Scottish Labour Party would be anti-Trident. I'd be very wary of a group of people who could do a 180 degree turn on an issue of this importance. Aye, it's amazing how they've never brought up this anti trident view before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 He also said an independent Scottish Labour Party would be anti-Trident. I'd be very wary of a group of people who could do a 180 degree turn on an issue of this importance. Well where are their principles now then, and what about Murphy telling us repeatedly that SLAB already are independent of the UK party? The lies Labour folk tell are amazing. All you have to do is listen then pick them up when they lie and they have nothing. I think it is that they feel so entitled, they are the good guys, so anything they have to say is fine as it is a just cause in their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 "The impact of majority government in a system where the electoral arrangements were designed to avoid majority government has thrown the issue of checks and balances in the Parliament into sharp relief." http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1014657.aspx The Law Society of Scotland are not an authoritative body on electoral systems and in any case are passing off the truism and received wisdom that d'hondt and fptp were "designed" to prevent majorities.They are "designed" to reflect the popular vote more proportionally than fptp. There are versions of d'hondt specifically designed to prevent majorities by limiting the number of top up seats a party can get but we don't have them. Now, you are quite right to say the UK establishment thought it would never produce a majority, indeed they may have thought they were designing a system to prevent majorities but they were wrong and demonstrably so. This is not semantics as your argument lives ane dies on the premise that "clever people" designed a system to prevent majority govt. Well, we have a majority govt. If the snp vote goes up next year comparitive to 2011 they will win more seats than they currently have. Its simple stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The Law Society of Scotland are not an authoritative body on electoral systems and in any case are passing off the truism and received wisdom that d'hondt and fptp were "designed" to prevent majorities. They are "designed" to reflect the popular vote more proportionally than fptp. There are versions of d'hondt specifically designed to prevent majorities by limiting the number of top up seats a party can get but we don't have them. Now, you are quite right to say the UK establishment thought it would never produce a majority, indeed they may have thought they were designing a system to prevent majorities but they were wrong and demonstrably so. This is not semantics as your argument lives ane dies on the premise that "clever people" designed a system to prevent majority govt. Well, we have a majority govt. If the snp vote goes up next year comparitive to 2011 they will win more seats than they currently have. Its simple stuff. We've had one majority govt so far. The Law Society was the first one I found, its just common knowledge google it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Oh well,if its common knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Yeah, its a daft question to even have to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 One out of four. So 25% have returned majorities. Not very clever stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 And that one caused absolute shockwaves and may be the only one we ever see. Just cause we have had one majority it doesn't mean there will be others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 And that one caused absolute shockwaves and may be the only one we ever see. Just cause we have had one majority it doesn't mean there will be others. The reality is that any system where the directly elected outnumber the list can return a majority. To say that it was designed not to do so is wrong. More accurately it was designed to make a majority extremely unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Same thing then isn't it, that was their intention. Expressly to prevent independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Alex Rowley lab msp "jum must go" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Alex Rowley lab msp "jum must go" jum must bide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 To be fair, Jim is seeking pastures new... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ouch! Sair yin for JIm and McTernan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Aye, it's amazing how they've never brought up this anti trident view before Eh? Findlay has long been open about his opposition to Trident. Findlay is an idiot. Separating from UK Labour and lurching to the far left would be catastrophic for the party. It would alienate a decent chunk of Labour supporters and voters. Findlay is twisting the knife in his attempts to get a leftist party. From what I can tell the majority of people who want Jim to resign in the Labour Party are the same people who wanted Findlay to win in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Eh? Findlay has long been open about his opposition to Trident. Findlay is an idiot. Separating from UK Labour and lurching to the far left would be catastrophic for the party. It would alienate a decent chunk of Labour supporters and voters. Findlay is twisting the knife in his attempts to get a leftist party. From what I can tell the majority of people who want Jim to resign in the Labour Party are the same people who wanted Findlay to win in the first place. A leftist party? Is it not you that claims you are left-wing, calls Blair left-wing and claims Labour are left-wing? I think you just don't realise the problem Labour have is people like you, you're not Labour and you don't know what Labour is or what left-wing politics are. You are a moderate Tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Eh? Findlay has long been open about his opposition to Trident. Findlay is an idiot. Separating from UK Labour and lurching to the far left would be catastrophic for the party. It would alienate a decent chunk of Labour supporters and voters. Findlay is twisting the knife in his attempts to get a leftist party. From what I can tell the majority of people who want Jim to resign in the Labour Party are the same people who wanted Findlay to win in the first place. Would Findlay have lost 98% of his seats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMjag Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Eh? Findlay has long been open about his opposition to Trident. Findlay is an idiot. Separating from UK Labour and lurching to the far left would be catastrophic for the party. It would alienate a decent chunk of Labour supporters and voters. Findlay is twisting the knife in his attempts to get a leftist party. You've just been fucking routed in a Westminster election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Would Findlay have lost 98% of his seats? I think he would have done worse. Would have alienated the Morningside voters who tactically allowed Ian Murray back in. We went to the country with a left-wing manifesto which spoke only to ourselves and got routed in Scotland and defeated heavily in England. Lurching left will compound this showing. Labour need to rediscover the centre ground and speak to aspiration. The SNP have managed, Labour need to fight them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.